HMRC deliberately omitted MOO from ESS/CEST
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1

    Faqqed Off

    TheFaQQer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    36,153
    Thanks (Given)
    382
    Thanks (Received)
    1288
    Likes (Given)
    3705
    Likes (Received)
    3230

    Default HMRC deliberately omitted MOO from ESS/CEST

    https://www.contractorcalculator.co....7610_news.aspx

    Q: If Hired for future work for pay means you have mutuality of obligation, when would you not have mutuality of obligation? It is a test, not a given, in employment law is it not?.
    A: It would rarely if ever be be the case in public sector hiring. That is why we did not put questions into the tool about it.

    Q: Umbrella companies are saying you're okay due to mutuality of obligation being in point?
    A: Yes we have seen people assert this in the past as if it were a magic bullet. But it it is important to actually have regard to the terms under which NHS locums are engaged. They are offered work, in
    advance, a particular shift or series of shifts and they cannot simply walk away from that work without meeting their obligation. They are contractually entitled to pay for these shifts. So all the minimum elements are present.

    Not sure I agree with their definition of MOO
    Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
    Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership
    Monday 27th November 1230-1330: IPSE Update on the Autumn Budget for contractors. Register here.

  2. #2

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    33,837
    Thanks (Given)
    141
    Thanks (Received)
    1475
    Likes (Given)
    1786
    Likes (Received)
    6056

    Default

    Looks like the same classic mistake we've seen plenty of times on here.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011' - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  3. #3
    eek
    eek is online now

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    22,460
    Thanks (Given)
    246
    Thanks (Received)
    1215
    Likes (Given)
    1047
    Likes (Received)
    3593

    Default

    Once again HMRC dance on the edge of a pin to ensure the information matches their interpretation and not the actual law..
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  4. #4

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    10,343
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    220
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    755

    Default

    The case law actually talks about an irreducible mutuality of obligation. That leaves room for interpretation of what is a "reasonably" (another legally valid term) irreducible minimum. Turning up for work you have agreed to does not therefore mean a mutuality; having to turn up whether you have agreed or not or be penalised in some way (such as no more work will be offered) is.

    All, of course, IMVHO.
    Blog? What blog...?

  5. #5

    Faqqed Off

    TheFaQQer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    36,153
    Thanks (Given)
    382
    Thanks (Received)
    1288
    Likes (Given)
    3705
    Likes (Received)
    3230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by malvolio View Post
    The case law actually talks about an irreducible mutuality of obligation. That leaves room for interpretation of what is a "reasonably" (another legally valid term) irreducible minimum. Turning up for work you have agreed to does not therefore mean a mutuality; having to turn up whether you have agreed or not or be penalised in some way (such as no more work will be offered) is.

    All, of course, IMVHO.
    From the HMRC slide deck explaining the rules to NHS people:

    Myth: There is no ‘mutuality of obligation’ in my contract therefore I am self-employed.

    It doesn’t make me self-employed. There is ‘mutuality of obligation’.

    Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
    Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership
    Monday 27th November 1230-1330: IPSE Update on the Autumn Budget for contractors. Register here.

  6. #6

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    228
    Thanks (Given)
    9
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    22

    Default HMRC deliberately omitted MOO from ESS/CEST

    So would I be right in thinking that, even by HMRC’s twisted definition of MOO, if a contractor is engaged for a period of time, and during that time the engager on occasion says “sorry, no work for today, don’t come in and don’t invoice”, that demonstrates a clear lack of MOO and should be kept as pretty compelling evidence that the arrangement is outside IR35 on the basis of no MOO?

    And if I’m wrong, what *would* be a clear demonstration?

  7. #7

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    228
    Thanks (Given)
    9
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    22

    Default

    Further to the above, this article seems to suggest this might be the case:

    https://www.qdosaccounting.com/ir35-meaning-of-moo/

    This was demonstrated in another IR35 case, Marlen Ltd v HMRC (2011), which was heard before the First Tier Tax Tribunal. Mr Hughes (contractor) provided engineering, design and drafting services to JCB. There were some occasions when the computer servers broke down, and the contractors were sent home, without pay, whereas JCB employees remained in place and were remunerated. This showed that JCB did not consider itself under any obligation to provide work or pay even after an offer had been made and accepted. Marlen terminated the contract early when a better off came along, further confirming that both parties understood that the contract could be terminated at any time and without consequence. The Tribunal, therefore, had no hesitation in concluding that the relationship between contractor and end client was one in which MOO was not present.

  8. #8

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    10,343
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    220
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meanttobeworking View Post
    Further to the above, this article seems to suggest this might be the case:

    https://www.qdosaccounting.com/ir35-meaning-of-moo/
    Precisely. That has been the case right back to the original RMC case in the 70s. HMRC are either ignorant of the fact, or are deliberately lying to their audience. Either option is totally deplorable.

    The weakness here is that FTTs do not define case law, which would be HMRC's defence. It needs an appeal in a higher court. However going back to earlier cases, the test is twofold; the employer has to offer work and the worker has to accept it. I don't see that the NHS has to offer work to a given locum, nor does the locum have to accept it (although if he does then he has to deliver the work). I contend that fails to the demonstrate the level of MoO needed to define the locum as an employee.

    A neat summary of the whole "are you an employee" argument is here.
    Blog? What blog...?

  9. #9

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    33,837
    Thanks (Given)
    141
    Thanks (Received)
    1475
    Likes (Given)
    1786
    Likes (Received)
    6056

    Default

    Isn't just the mention of locums a problem. There has been plenty of opinion they were inside anyway so a poor indicator of anything that would affect us?
    'CUK forum personality of 2011' - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  10. #10

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    10,343
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    220
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladuk View Post
    Isn't just the mention of locums a problem. There has been plenty of opinion they were inside anyway so a poor indicator of anything that would affect us?
    No. Distinguish between locums that take on longer contracts compared to those who are used to fill in gaps in resources on an as-needed basis. The former may be depending on their contracts and Ts&Cs, the latter probably aren't. The "disguised employee" argument remains unchanged.

    Even for the former group, they could also argue that they are employed by an NHS trust for each contract and that trust does not have to renew the contract on completion, which blows HMRC's argument that they are employees of the NHS as a whole.

    If it were black and white, we wouldn't be arguing about IR35 after 20 years...
    Blog? What blog...?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.